ISCR Case 11-12370.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-12370.h1

deniedMay 9, 2013· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 56-year-old senior executive with a defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), and F (Financial Considerations). The applicant holds dual U.S. and Israeli citizenship, as do his wife and three children. At the time the record closed, his wife and two daughters resided in Israel, where they had lived for approximately five years for schooling, while his son, who had also studied in Israel, was living in Italy.

The applicant has extensive ties to Israel, including a $1.5 million home and monthly payments of $12,000 to support his family there. He travels to Israel at least twice a year. His military service occurred as an Israeli citizen before he came to the United States. These factors raised concerns that he had acted in a way that showed a preference for another country over the United States.

Additionally, the applicant faced financial issues, including a judgment of approximately $3,016,152 resulting from financial guarantees for his brother's failed business. He reached a settlement to pay $1,415,000, having already paid $365,000, with further payments scheduled through 2015. He also had a state tax lien for approximately $1,036, which was paid and released on August 3, 2012. The judge found that the applicant did not sufficiently mitigate the concerns related to his dual citizenship, foreign family ties, financial support for family abroad, and financial obligations, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant holds dual citizenship with Israel and the United States, which raises concerns about foreign preference and influence.
The applicant's family resides in Israel, and he financially supports them, creating potential conflicts of interest and vulnerability to foreign influence.
The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient efforts to renounce his Israeli citizenship or mitigate the risks associated with his foreign ties.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 10appliedForeign Preference
AG ¶ 7(a)appliedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7(b)appliedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7(e)appliedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 11(a)rejectedForeign PreferenceThe applicant's dual citizenship is based on birth, but this does not mitigate the concerns due to his continued use of an Israeli passport.
AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedForeign InfluenceThe applicant's extensive family and financial ties to Israel create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedForeign InfluenceThe applicant's loyalty to his family in Israel undermines the argument of minimal conflict of interest.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 12, 2012
Answer filedAug 3, 2012
Hearing heldOct 24, 2012
Decision dateMay 9, 2013

Cite For

Security Concerns Regarding Dual Citizenship Under Guideline C
Impact of Foreign Family Ties on Security Clearance Under Guideline B
Financial Obligations and Their Implications for Security Clearance Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant's immediate family is his wife and three children. As stated, his wife is a naturalized American citizen, and the three children are all native-born American citizens. All of them are also Israeli citizens and carry both American and Israeli passports. Applicant's wife and his two daughters lived in Israel at the time the record closed. They had lived there for approximately five years, while the daughters went to school. Applicant's son had been living and studying in Israel, but he now lives in Italy.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Israel HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.m	Applicant has extensive family, business and financial connections to Israel. Applicant bought a house in Israel worth approximately $1.5 million. In addition, Applicant sends $12,000 a month to a bank account in Israel to help his family live there. Applicant has been traveling to Israel at least twice a year to spend time with his family.	Against Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	Israel HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant's immediate family is his wife and three children. As stated, his wife is a naturalized American citizen, and the three children are all native-born American citizens. All of them are also Israeli citizens and carry both American and Israeli passports. Applicant's wife and his two daughters lived in Israel at the time the record closed. They had lived there for approximately five years, while the daughters went to school. Applicant's son had been living and studying in Israel, but he now lives in Italy.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Israel

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.m

Applicant has extensive family, business and financial connections to Israel. Applicant bought a house in Israel worth approximately $1.5 million. In addition, Applicant sends $12,000 a month to a bank account in Israel to help his family live there. Applicant has been traveling to Israel at least twice a year to spend time with his family.

Against Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

Israel

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has acted in a way that shows a preference for another country ahead of the United States.	Against Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.b	Applicant's military service occurred when he was an Israeli citizen, and before he came to the United States.	For Applicant	Foreign Military or Government Service	Admitted	—	(c) the individual has expressed a willingness to renounce the foreign citizenship that is in conflict with U.S. national security interests	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has acted in a way that shows a preference for another country ahead of the United States.

Against Applicant

Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

1.b

Applicant's military service occurred when he was an Israeli citizen, and before he came to the United States.

For Applicant

Foreign Military or Government Service

Admitted

—

(c) the individual has expressed a willingness to renounce the foreign citizenship that is in conflict with U.S. national security interests

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant denied being indebted to a company for a judgment against him in the amount of approximately $3,016,152. This situation occurred because Applicant signed financial guarantees for his brother, who wanted to get into an expensive, but potentially lucrative, business. The brother’s business failed, and Applicant became financially responsible because he had the money to pay the debts. Applicant has come to an agreement with the company where he will pay $1,415,000 in full settlement of the case. Applicant has already paid $365,000 and will make similar payments in 2013, 2014, and 2015. He has the financial ability to make such payments. $3,016,152	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant was indebted to his state taxing authority in the amount of approximately $1,036, which resulted in a tax lien being filed. Applicant paid the tax debt and the lien was released on August 3, 2012. $1,036	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶19)

Mitigating applied (¶20)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant denied being indebted to a company for a judgment against him in the amount of approximately $3,016,152. This situation occurred because Applicant signed financial guarantees for his brother, who wanted to get into an expensive, but potentially lucrative, business. The brother’s business failed, and Applicant became financially responsible because he had the money to pay the debts. Applicant has come to an agreement with the company where he will pay $1,415,000 in full settlement of the case. Applicant has already paid $365,000 and will make similar payments in 2013, 2014, and 2015. He has the financial ability to make such payments.

$3,016,152

For Applicant

Unspecified Financial

Denied

—

3.b

Applicant was indebted to his state taxing authority in the amount of approximately $1,036, which resulted in a tax lien being filed. Applicant paid the tax debt and the lien was released on August 3, 2012.

$1,036

For Applicant

Tax Unpaid

Admitted

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES